to want to abolish private schools' charitable status?

[minifingers]

Which costs the tax payer 100 million squids a year.

Schools justify having charitable status by saying they offer financial help to 'disadvantaged' children.

The 'disadvantaged' children they refer to are actually, almost to a boy/girl, highly intelligent, academically successful children who have outstandingly supportive parents (otherwise they wouldn't be researching bursaries/applying for schools/preparing their children for exams). In other words, not at all disadvantaged. These are the children who generally succeed very highly in the state sector too.

I personally think that tax-payers money should go towards supporting those children who are failing in education, not to those children who are already succeeding. Surely it's more beneficial for the children who are currently failing most severely in the state sector to have tax payers money spent on them, as these are the children who the tax payer ends up supporting through benefits/the prison system.

In addition, 'skimming off' this top layer of very clever children and sending them to be educated separately from other ordinary kids impacts on the learning of all the other children in the state sector - any of us who have done a degree/been in education know what a difference it makes to be in a class where there are a lot of clever/motivated people, how much more enjoyable and productive learning is.

Just to draw a mumsnet analogy - imagine if all the funniest and most interesting posters here were offered their own site - 'mumsnet gold', where they could be funny and interesting all day long and those of us who are not as funny and clever would be excluded. Imagine how much of a loss that would be to everyone here? we could rename the new non-gold site 'netmums2'

So, AIBU?

Take the £100000000 currently given to private schools and give it to state schools with the largest number of underachieving students to spend on supporting their education instead?

Sometimes a more understandable option than others... It's about whether they're charitable and should be treated as such. The fact that many people feel they have good reasons to use them, or don't think they'd've enjoyed state school says nothing about whether the schools are charitable.

I was responding to a point someone above made about private schools being places parents want to send their children to avoid a cross section of society. I really don't think it works like that.

Yanbu
Private school teachers get state final salary pensions which cost the rest of us a fortune. You would never be able to get a deal like that in normal non-teaching private sector. We are all paying for private schools' teachers.

TOSN

I think they should be awarded charitable status if they can prove they are charitable.
The example I gave above about my dds preferred school, over 90% of pupils receive funding of some sort, hardly anyone pays full fees.
If the child meets the entrance criteria the parents means to pay fees are immaterial.
I'm not sure how many schools exist like this, maybe not many, but to me this is truly charitable.

YANBU.

I wonder why the last Labour government didn't try to do something about it, if, as someone said up thread, the laws governing charitable status could be amended.
Fiona Millar and her partner, the unelected politician Alastair Campbell are strongly opposed to private education, and so presumably are most Labour MPs (except of course the hypocritical ones who sent their children to private school).
What was stopping them from doing something about it?

Sorry - I haven't made it very clear - it should read 'the laws governing charitable status could be amended so that the public schools' charitable status could be revoked'.

Because the big donors to all political parties wouldn't accept it.

Morethan- the school you are talking about is a special case. For the sake of others who may not know, the children who get assistance with fees are truly gifted musicians- not your standard two instruments at grade 5 middle class accomplishment children, but truly gifted. Not really the same thing at all.

Hakluyt - when Labour was in power with a large majority why would it have mattered what donors to the other parties thought?

Hakluyt

I'm sorry but I disagree. It's exactly a charitable school, by definition.
It's also not unique as others do this, and it is also highly selective as some other charitable schools are.

Because donors to the Labour party were from the same tiny group too.

Morethan- I am saying that it is possible to make a case for that school being a charity because it does take children who could not be catered for in any other school. I am assuming that I have guessed which school we're talking about. But I do not know of any other school which operates like this.

Actually, morethan- doesn't the money for kids who can't pay the fees at that school come from a government scheme? So not a charity at all.

Even if the money comes from a govt scheme doesn't that make it comparable to academies which are all charities?

We're all paying for all the state school teachers pension too. I'm guessing often in one career a teacher can cover off both sectors.

Hakluyt.

Ha Ha, I'm lost in brain freeze, it doesn't take much.
Yes, gov scheme, but is this not still not funded by the tax payer.
I'll admit to being a bit green here.
I meant the same in relation to the schools the OP examples as tax payer funded.

If it's a government scheme then of course it's funded by the tax payer. That's where they get their money for education from.

Still laughing at this thread, I've never seen so many people wiggle about in my life trying not to admit to things. "Er...it's a charity for people who are very brainy and whose parents Really Care about education and have a spare 30K!" That is not, precisely, a charity.

What Nit said sums it up: "It's about whether they're charitable and should be treated as such. The fact that many people feel they have good reasons to use them, or don't think they'd've enjoyed state school says nothing about whether the schools are charitable."

Er, not all children at private schools are brainy. If you really believe that then there is no point debating the matter any further as you must be very closed minded. Have you looked into private schools whose sole aim is to provide an education for children with specific learning needs or other types of additional needs? Lots of the private schools for children with additional needs have plenty of children on state fund places due to the maintained schools not being able to provide an appropriate education. In those schools he children owing need to be brainy, the parents don't need to care about education and the parents don't need a spare £30k.

"Er, not all children at private schools are brainy. "

No they're not. But the ones that are "charity cases" need to be. Or incredibly talented in some way.

Yes, there are private schools for children with particular needs,but my understanding that children who go to these because the state system cannot accommodate them have their fees paid by the state.

What Hakluyt said basically.

Because we're getting down to cases I wonder how many Jaydens and Taniques Eton, Fettes and Gordonstoun have. All three schools have charitable status and get tax breaks. None of them are "special needs schools". So what, precisely, are they doing which makes them charities?

Regardless of who pays the fees they are still private schools. Do you think a school keeps a register of who has fees paid by parents and who has fees paid by the state?
I wrote in my post that lots of children at these schools have places funded by the state, so I'm not sure why you are pointing something out to me that I have written myself.
They are private schools benefiting from state money.

1. We don't have final salary pensions anymore.
2. Not all private schools are academically selective, so they are not all "brainy".
3. As many other posters (including me) have said, what we do to justify our charitable status includes a LOT of partnership work with local organisations for the elderly, primary schools. Our facilities which our fee paying parents paid for are made available every evening and weekend for local residents. We provide education for young people just like state schools who don't get taxed on their "oncome" from the LEA.

We do not sit around in ivory towers quaffing caviar at breaktime. The school does not make profit. Every penny is ploughed into teachers' salaries (not that much better than state, though a little) and facilities and upkeep of our buildings.

1. Lots of other points about private schools keeping 7% of kids out of the state system, parents paying "twice" to subsidise state schools that they are not using..

The problem with long threads is that they end up going round in circles. All of the above points have been made already.

fairylights but you do batten on the Teachers' Superannuation. Private schools should be truly private, but they're not.